This research comes out of a gigantic nine-year, federally-sponsored, world-wide project called ENCODE (Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements), which was designed to learn more about “junk” DNA. These research findings should have broad ramifications for federal and state DNA collection programs.

EFF has filed briefs in Haskell and several other caseschallenging DNA collection from arrestees, arguing this kind of warrantless seizure and search violates the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, subject to only a few exceptions that don’t apply here, warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” (p. 338) The Fourth Amendment is designed to protect against laws that give “police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects,” because searches that aren’t tied to finding evidence of the crime at issue “create[] a serious and recurring threat to the privacy interest of countless individuals.” (p. 345) It doesn’t matter if there is a possibility that the search will reveal something incriminating or useful in solving past or future crimes, the cops still can’t search through our private things without a warrant. (p. 344.)

These concerns apply with equal force to government DNA collection programs, which allow the government to obtain sensitive and private information on a person without showing that the data collected is tied to a specific crime. Thanks to changes in the laws to allow DNA collection from arrestees, federal and state DNA databanks have expanded exponentially over the last several years. The FBI’s federal CODIS DNA database now contains over 11.4 million DNA profiles, and nearly 2 million of those came from California.

The plaintiffs’ stories in Haskell v. Harris show that almost anyone can be affected by warrantless DNA collection. Several were political activists and were arrested during demonstrations. They were told that if they refused to provide a DNA sample, they would be charged with a separate misdemeanor and their bail would be increased. None of the plaintiffs was ever convicted of any charges, and in fact, after their DNA samples were taken, police dropped or dismissed the charges against each of them. For one of the plaintiffs, no charges were ever filed. This is typical in California, where a third of the 300,000 people arrested for felonies each year are never convicted, and many arrestees are never even charged.

DNA collection also leads to intangible harms to privacy and civil liberties that are no less protected by the Fourth Amendment. As the plaintiffs in Haskell told the court, when the government searches through our private effects—including our DNA—without cause to believe that we’ve done anything wrong, it makes us feel we’ve been violated, and we’re less likely to engage in society. This is especially true if the government retains the material it collects from us and subjects it to repeated searches.

The government argues that collecting DNA serves an important interest because it makes it easier to identify perpetrators of past and future crimes. Yet this type of utilitarian argument, based solely on law enforcement investigatory purposes and not on individualized suspicion, should have no weight under the Fourth Amendment. If it did, it could apply with equal force to support a program that collects DNA from everyone—which would, in effect, eviscerate the purpose of the Fourth Amendment.

The ENCODE project results reinforce the point that DNA contains important information about who we are, who we will be and our relationships with other people. That data should not be in the hands of the government without probable cause to believe it is linked to a crime.

As we’ve argued to the Ninth Circuit in Haskell and in other cases, the time to roll back governmental DNA collection is now.

1. When law enforcement collects DNA it takes a swab of genetic material from the inner cheek. This DNA sample contains a person’s entire genetic data. From that sample, a lab extracts data from 13 genetic markers to create a DNA “profile.” The FBI (and the state, if it’s a state arrest) retains both the sample and the profile indefinitely. The profile is entered into CODIS and searched every week.

Related Updates

A new Illinois bill would strip residents of critical protection of their biometric privacy, including their right to decide whether or not a business may harvest and monetize data about their faces and fingerprints. Given the growingpublicoutrage over how Facebook and Cambridge Analytica handled...

In a disappointing and deeply divided opinion released today, the California Supreme Court upheld a state law law mandating DNA collection from arrestees. A lower court had held this law violated the privacy and search and seizure protections guaranteed under the California constitution. Today’s decision lets this flawed law...

The Supreme Court of India has commenced final hearings in the long-standing challenge to India's massive biometric identity apparatus, Aadhaar. Following last August’s ruling in the Puttaswamy case rejecting the Attorney General's contention that privacy was not a fundamental right, a five-judge bench is now weighing in on...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Privacy Office, and Office of Field Operations recently invited privacy stakeholders—including EFF and the ACLU of Northern California—to participate in a briefing and update on how the CBP is implementing its Biometric Entry/Exit Program.
As we’ve written ...

San Francisco, California—Face recognition—fast becoming law enforcement’s surveillance tool of choice—is being implemented with little oversight or privacy protections, leading to faulty systems that will disproportionately impact people of color and may implicate innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, says an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ...

EFF is taking the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), FBI, and DHS to court to obtain records about a program to refine automated tattoo recognition technology.
Beginning in 2014, NIST, with support from the FBI and DHS, created a multi-part technology challenge that encouraged public universities and private...

Step onto any city street and you may find yourself subject to numerous forms of police surveillance—many imperceptible to the human eye.A cruiser equipped with automated license plate readers (also known as ALPRs) may have just logged where you parked your car. A cell-site simulator may be capturing your cell-phone...

San Francisco, California—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the ACLU won a decision by the California Supreme Court that the license plate data of millions of law-abiding drivers, collected indiscriminately by police across the state, are not “investigative records” that law enforcement can keep secret. California’s...